Suspending people who don't play nice with others

#41
(Nov 2, 2018 11:57 PM)Syne Wrote: And she also failed to answer where Ford actually cried during her testimony, where if her accusations were true, she should have had much more reason to. So between a male lawyer and judge, who did break down and lose composure, and a female psychologist, who didn't, she thinks the women is more credible, and the guy had the acting chops to pull that off? No rational argument has been made in that vein, only unrelated personal experience, emotional empathy solely because it's another woman, and leftist lies and myths of male privilege.

"Advocates have much in common with actors. For actors and lawyers, the key to a winning performance is not what they say but how they say it." –American Bar Association

Quote:Being a trial lawyer is truly a theatrical experience. It involves not only the technical elements of theater, like staging and voice, but also the truly "act-y" parts. What will you say, and when? How will you react to a question you already know the answer to? And most importantly, how do you impress a jury?

https://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/201...asses.html
Reply
#42
Oh, I don't have empathy for Dr Ford, simply because she is ''another woman,'' nor did I find her story credible strictly because of her gender. I believe her testimony was moving, and very convincing. And honest. Genuine. She admitted when she couldn't recall something, and was emphatic when she could remember details.

That hearing was to determine credibility of either person, not to determine if Kavanaugh had committed a crime, as to convict him. My issue with Kavanaugh is that I believe he lied under oath, as his recollection of his drinking days, didn't really seem to match up with those who knew him during that time period. Lying under oath is why he shouldn't have been confirmed. If he would lie about something so trivial as his past drinking habits, why? Except that he knew if he was totally honest (not the ''I like beer'' bit) about his past drinking binges during high school and college days, that would cause people to wonder if he could have been reckless with women when he was under the influence or drunk. So, he played it down. Too bad he didn't jot it down on that creepy calendar of his. Dodgy

Let me say, I don't know for sure if he lied under oath, I just believe he did. Based on what his former classmates at Yale had to say about him. I'm entitled to finding Kavanaugh not as credible as Dr Ford. This is the land of the free, after all, right?
Reply
#43
(Nov 3, 2018 01:15 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 2, 2018 11:57 PM)Syne Wrote: And she also failed to answer where Ford actually cried during her testimony, where if her accusations were true, she should have had much more reason to. So between a male lawyer and judge, who did break down and lose composure, and a female psychologist, who didn't, she thinks the women is more credible, and the guy had the acting chops to pull that off? No rational argument has been made in that vein, only unrelated personal experience, emotional empathy solely because it's another woman, and leftist lies and myths of male privilege.

"Advocates have much in common with actors. For actors and lawyers, the key to a winning performance is not what they say but how they say it." –American Bar Association
Can't find a working page for that quote, but I can find these:

Trial attorneys have much in common with actors. Havener provides advice on how to present a case to the jury using the communication techniques of stage actors.
- https://www.americanbar.org/products/ecd...le/218719/

Learn how to develop and use stage presence, use an actor's voice and gestures, and deliver effective speeches in a focused, authentic, and powerful way.
- https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv...137291741/

Yeah, that's called presentation.
See, that broken voice Ford used could easily be acting, while I wouldn't expect a lawyer to be able to produce actual tears on demand, nor a real trial situation where developing such a skill would be useful (it ain't like TV law dramas).

Quote:
Quote:Being a trial lawyer is truly a theatrical experience. It involves not only the technical elements of theater, like staging and voice, but also the truly "act-y" parts. What will you say, and when? How will you react to a question you already know the answer to? And most importantly, how do you impress a jury?

https://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/201...asses.html
From your own link:

Lawyers, at least, should take acting classes to learn the technical parts of acting. For example, how do you project your voice? The jury needs to be able to hear you, and they can't do it if you're mumbling. You should also practice blocking, which is where people stand and where they move in a performance. It's important that you stand in the right place so that the jury can see the witness -- or, in the case of cross examination, so that the jury can see you.
...
Ultimately, acting classes are a good idea because they increase your public speaking confidence.

Big difference from being able to cry on demand.


Oh, you mean you didn't want to press me on why being called a woman wasn't an ad hominem? No actual arguments for how my question to Leigha was an ad hom?
Just poisoning the well and making unsupported proclamations? Got it.




(Nov 3, 2018 01:31 AM)Leigha Wrote: Oh, I don't have empathy for Dr Ford, simply because she is ''another woman,'' nor did I find her story credible strictly because of her gender. I believe her testimony was moving, and very convincing. And honest. Genuine. She admitted when she couldn't recall something, and was emphatic when she could remember details.
Oh really. Dodgy
(Oct 29, 2018 09:52 PM)Leigha Wrote: White privileged men know the game, and know how to play it.
(Oct 30, 2018 07:57 PM)Leigha Wrote: Your mind was probably made up before you heard one word out of Dr Ford's mouth. Like most of the dudes sitting on the panel that day.

Move along, nothing new to see here. White male privilege under construction.
You certainly presumed there was some male privilege conspiring against her and that anyone who believed Kavanaugh was because he was a man. That's called projection.
Quote:That hearing was to determine credibility of either person, not to determine if Kavanaugh had committed a crime, as to convict him. My issue with Kavanaugh is that I believe he lied under oath, as his recollection of his drinking days, didn't really seem to match up with those who knew him during that time period. Lying under oath is why he shouldn't have been confirmed. If he would lie about something so trivial as his past drinking habits, why? Except that he knew if he was totally honest (not the ''I like beer'' bit) about his past drinking binges during high school and college days, that would cause people to wonder if he could have been reckless with women when he was under the influence or drunk. So, he played it down. Too bad he didn't jot it down on that creepy calendar of his. Dodgy

Let me say, I don't know for sure if he lied under oath, I just believe he did. Based on what his former classmates at Yale had to say about him. I'm entitled to finding Kavanaugh not as credible as Dr Ford. This is the land of the free, after all, right?
You believe unsupported rumor and intentionally misrepresented facts that I've fully refuted, but you have (not) mysteriously failed to address or even acknowledge. You just choose to believe those who support your foregone conclusion...just like you accuse others of doing (again, projection). Those who say he lied under oath didn't say they witnessed anything that contradicted his testimony. He also said "sometimes I drank too much beer". You keep conveniently leaving that out...so you can keep believing he lied.

And on top of that, you're completely uninformed about the lack of corroboration and even refute of Ford's testimony. How NO ONE she said was there recall it ever happening, including her lifelong friend saying she NEVER MET KAVANAUGH.

You've proven yourself woefully and willfully uninformed, with no apparent interest in learning more or even rationally justifying your opinion.
Reply
#44
(Nov 3, 2018 02:35 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 3, 2018 01:15 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 2, 2018 11:57 PM)Syne Wrote: And she also failed to answer where Ford actually cried during her testimony, where if her accusations were true, she should have had much more reason to. So between a male lawyer and judge, who did break down and lose composure, and a female psychologist, who didn't, she thinks the women is more credible, and the guy had the acting chops to pull that off? No rational argument has been made in that vein, only unrelated personal experience, emotional empathy solely because it's another woman, and leftist lies and myths of male privilege.

"Advocates have much in common with actors. For actors and lawyers, the key to a winning performance is not what they say but how they say it." –American Bar Association
Can't find a working page for that quote, but I can find these:

Trial attorneys have much in common with actors. Havener provides advice on how to present a case to the jury using the communication techniques of stage actors.
- https://www.americanbar.org/products/ecd...le/218719/

Learn how to develop and use stage presence, use an actor's voice and gestures, and deliver effective speeches in a focused, authentic, and powerful way.
- https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv...137291741/

Yeah, that's called presentation.
See, that broken voice Ford used could easily be acting, while I wouldn't expect a lawyer to be able to produce actual tears on demand, nor a real trial situation where developing such a skill would be useful (it ain't like TV law dramas).

Quote:
Quote:Being a trial lawyer is truly a theatrical experience. It involves not only the technical elements of theater, like staging and voice, but also the truly "act-y" parts. What will you say, and when? How will you react to a question you already know the answer to? And most importantly, how do you impress a jury?

https://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/201...asses.html
From your own link:

Lawyers, at least, should take acting classes to learn the technical parts of acting. For example, how do you project your voice? The jury needs to be able to hear you, and they can't do it if you're mumbling. You should also practice blocking, which is where people stand and where they move in a performance. It's important that you stand in the right place so that the jury can see the witness -- or, in the case of cross examination, so that the jury can see you.
...
Ultimately, acting classes are a good idea because they increase your public speaking confidence.

Big difference from being able to cry on demand.


Oh, you mean you didn't want to press me on why being called a woman wasn't an ad hominem? No actual arguments for how my question to Leigha was an ad hom?
Just poisoning the well and making unsupported proclamations? Got it.




(Nov 3, 2018 01:31 AM)Leigha Wrote: Oh, I don't have empathy for Dr Ford, simply because she is ''another woman,'' nor did I find her story credible strictly because of her gender. I believe her testimony was moving, and very convincing. And honest. Genuine. She admitted when she couldn't recall something, and was emphatic when she could remember details.
Oh really.  Dodgy
(Oct 29, 2018 09:52 PM)Leigha Wrote: White privileged men know the game, and know how to play it.
(Oct 30, 2018 07:57 PM)Leigha Wrote: Your mind was probably made up before you heard one word out of Dr Ford's mouth. Like most of the dudes sitting on the panel that day.

Move along, nothing new to see here. White male privilege under construction.
You certainly presumed there was some male privilege conspiring against her and that anyone who believed Kavanaugh was because he was a man. That's called projection.
Quote:That hearing was to determine credibility of either person, not to determine if Kavanaugh had committed a crime, as to convict him. My issue with Kavanaugh is that I believe he lied under oath, as his recollection of his drinking days, didn't really seem to match up with those who knew him during that time period. Lying under oath is why he shouldn't have been confirmed. If he would lie about something so trivial as his past drinking habits, why? Except that he knew if he was totally honest (not the ''I like beer'' bit) about his past drinking binges during high school and college days, that would cause people to wonder if he could have been reckless with women when he was under the influence or drunk. So, he played it down. Too bad he didn't jot it down on that creepy calendar of his. Dodgy

Let me say, I don't know for sure if he lied under oath, I just believe he did. Based on what his former classmates at Yale had to say about him. I'm entitled to finding Kavanaugh not as credible as Dr Ford. This is the land of the free, after all, right?
You believe unsupported rumor and intentionally misrepresented facts that I've fully refuted, but you have (not) mysteriously failed to address or even acknowledge. You just choose to believe those who support your foregone conclusion...just like you accuse others of doing (again, projection). Those who say he lied under oath didn't say they witnessed anything that contradicted his testimony. He also said "sometimes I drank too much beer". You keep conveniently leaving that out...so you can keep believing he lied.

And on top of that, you're completely uninformed about the lack of corroboration and even refute of Ford's testimony. How NO ONE she said was there recall it ever happening, including her lifelong friend saying she NEVER MET KAVANAUGH.

You've proven yourself woefully and willfully uninformed, with no apparent interest in learning more or even rationally justifying your opinion.

You're missing the point. I never stated, in fact I explicitly stated that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh of a crime. This wasn't a criminal trial. The hearings between the two, were merely to determine credibility. That's it. I didn't find him to be as credible as she was, in her testimony. Who are you to tell me that's wrong? Not enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh, if this was a criminal case, but it's not a criminal case.

That's what you're missing. His former Yale classmates were on different news programs, discussing the details of Kavanaugh's drinking habits from college days. They were making it all up, on live news programs? lol Why? 

Not to mention that the FBI ''investigation'' seemed rushed and didn't cross examine Ford nor Kavanaugh, and didn't interrogate others who were supposedly considered ''witnesses.'' 

Not to mention Kavanaugh seemed pretty uncomfortable about a thorough FBI investigation taking place after the hearing. And a few of his former classmates stated that he was texting them, coaching them as to what to say about him.

That's evidence that seemed to be brushed aside. I realize that there were people who couldn't recall the party, couldn't recall meeting Kavanaugh, couldn't recall being at that party, etc. And I don't disbelieve them, but she stated that she was 100% positive that Kavanaugh was the guy who tried to assault her. With his buddy, Mark Judge, who seems like he's hiding something. I know, they both swore under oath...but so did Dr Ford.

That's why you believe him, and I believe her. And why a nation is divided on the issue. I don't think you're stupid or ignorant for siding with Kavanaugh, it's not personal to me. I honestly don't care what you think, to be honest. Just stating why I found her testimony to be more credible than his.
Reply
#45
(Nov 3, 2018 02:56 AM)Leigha Wrote: You're missing the point. I never stated, in fact I explicitly stated that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh of a crime. This wasn't a criminal trial. The hearings between the two, were merely to determine credibility. That's it. I didn't find him to be as credible as she was, in her testimony. Who are you to tell me that's wrong? Not enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh, if this was a criminal case, but it's not a criminal case.

That's what you're missing. His former Yale classmates were on different news programs, discussing the details of Kavanaugh's drinking habits from college days. They were making it all up, on live news programs? lol Why? 

Not to mention that the FBI ''investigation'' seemed rushed and didn't cross examine Ford nor Kavanaugh, and didn't interrogate others who were supposedly considered ''witnesses.'' 

Who said anything about a crime? I certainly didn't say anything about a crime or criminal trial. And I haven't disagreed once about it being an matter of credibility, but credibility goes beyond just whose manner you liked better during their testimony. Corroboration does speak to credibility. It is wrong to claim to be assessing credibility while being unaware of or flat out wrong about the corroborating facts. That's as naive as judging the credibility of a child saying they didn't break a lamp without taking into account the broken lamp and their sole proximity to it.

Now I understand that women do preference their own emotional "gut" reaction to things over pesky facts, and if you're claiming a woman's prerogative, I will both discount your opinion on the matter entirely and desist from pressing you any further. You're free to indulge in your own fantasies.

You apparently missed where I already addressed Kavanaugh's former classmates:
(Oct 30, 2018 04:19 AM)Syne Wrote:

On CNN on Friday night, Chris Cuomo interviewed Liz Swisher, one of Kavanaugh’s former classmates. “What do you know about Brett Kavanaugh that he was not truthful about in the hearing?” Cuomo asked her.

“I would’ve stayed on the sidelines if he’d said, ‘I drank to excess in high school. I drank to excess in college. I did some stupid things. But I never sexually assaulted anybody,’” Swisher told Cuomo. “But to lie under oath, to lie about that, then what else is true?”

But Swisher’s comment about what she believes Kavanaugh ought to have said in order to be truthful lines up almost exactly with what Kavanaugh did say during his testimony. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said in his opening statement. ”Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.”

That statement is nearly word for word what Swisher said her former classmate ought to have testified. And yet she appeared on CNN to offer this commentary and call him a liar.

Meanwhile, another of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates, Chad Ludington, issued a statement on Sunday claiming that Kavanaugh made a “blatant mischaracterization” of his drinking habits. His statement, however, failed to indicate exactly what Kavanaugh mischaracterized. Ludington offered no new evidence or information that contradicted what Kavanaugh himself has already admitted.
- https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ya...-drinking/


Kavanaugh clearly said he sometimes "had too many beers". So where's this boogeyman that he lied? O_o
Kavanaugh never testified that he never got belligerent or angry when drunk, so Ludington's claims don't show that he lied either.


The FBI investigation had NOTHING to do with anyone's credibility. If you think it did, then you're imagining some damning info we never heard in the news. And you can't have it both ways. Either your sense of credibility relied solely on their testimony or it didn't, in which case ALL the corroborating facts, and lack thereof, are pertinent. So you seem to be cherry-picking the facts that suit your foregone conclusion.

Quote:Not to mention Kavanaugh seemed pretty uncomfortable about a thorough FBI investigation taking place after the hearing. And a few of his former classmates stated that he was texting them, coaching them as to what to say about him.
I already explained the facts about him needing to be confirmed before the midterms, LEST IT NEVER HAPPEN AT ALL. Why don't you understand how he wouldn't want a drawn out investigation (which when he was asked is what everyone expected) that would almost certainly dash his hopes of reaching the pinnacle of his career? Had nothing to do with hiding anything, and there's no evidence he was "coaching" people. The same cannot be said for Ford's side. Asking people to "go on the record" is not coaching, but "twisting" their words or asking them to "clarify [their] statement" may be.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”
...
On Monday, a senior U.S. official confirmed that the White House has authorized the FBI to expand its initially limited investigation by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week. The New York Times first reported the change in scope.
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...ce-n915566


If you think someone is orchestrating a hit piece on you, you'd be nuts to ignore it. It was Ramirez' trying to coach classmates.

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh
...
Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.

The statement to the FBI offers a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-d...1538715152


And Swetnick said that Avenatti "twisted my words". https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...gh-n924596

Quote:That's evidence that seemed to be brushed aside. I realize that there were people who couldn't recall the party, couldn't recall meeting Kavanaugh, couldn't recall being at that party, etc. And I don't disbelieve them, but she stated that she was 100% positive that Kavanaugh was the guy who tried to assault her. With his buddy, Mark Judge, who seems like he's hiding something. I know, they both swore under oath...but so did Dr Ford.
Yes, you dismiss the lack of corroboration to maintain your foregone conclusion.
Quote:That's why you believe him, and I believe her. And why a nation is divided on the issue. I don't think you're stupid or ignorant for siding with Kavanaugh, it's not personal to me. I honestly don't care what you think, to be honest. Just stating why I found her testimony to be more credible than his.
Wait, why do you think I believe him? Because I'm a guy and male privilege or something?

Again, if your opinion is just your "gut" feeling, it means nothing at all. I really don't know why you're arguing it if you "honestly don't care".,
Actions belie your words.
Reply
#46
(Oct 30, 2018 09:03 PM)Leigha Wrote: Can we have some type of infraction feature added whereby people who refuse to play nice with others, can be temporarily suspended? It's sad that such a thing is needed, but there are those in life who don't seem to understand how to conduct an argument without name calling. 

Came across something relevant reading some of my old threads:
(Dec 24, 2016 12:48 AM)Leigha Wrote: I find that tone policing in general, is usually a tactic to shut down arguments, if the arguments are expressly going against the person who is tone policing.
Reply
#47
There's a forum that's 10x, no 100x  worse than this forum as far as being inappropriate goes. There's no moderation but has one of those automatic bad word detectors that people get around using symbols, space.bar and whatever. Also has an Ignore button. Yet it has thousands of members. It's called Stockhouse and naturally deals with trading securities. $hit, people are really nasty when it comes to stock market/money talk. So perhaps I really don't find this forum offensive because I also belong to Stockhouse. However same thing exists over there with the conversation, name calling or one-upmanship never ending except language much much worse. This forum(scivillage) is a choir compared to Stockhouse's punk rock..
Reply
#48
lol @ post #46

Name calling isn't really necessary, wouldn't consider asking people to refrain from name calling as ''tone policing.''

Think of it this way. Do you name call your coworkers, or boss when you disagree? Probably not. Being decent, while disagreeing, is possible. Wink
Reply
#49
(Dec 5, 2018 05:40 AM)Leigha Wrote: lol @ post #46

Name calling isn't really necessary, wouldn't consider asking people to refrain from name calling as ''tone policing.''

Think of it this way. Do you name call your coworkers, or boss when you disagree? Probably not. Being decent, while disagreeing, is possible. Wink

If you cannot justify how something is "name calling" then, yes, it's only tone policing.

(Nov 1, 2018 06:04 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, where's this supposed name calling? O_o
It's interesting to watch people mistake things as personal, thereby exposing their insecurity, and then arduously avoiding explicitly making the case for their accusations...maybe realizing they were the ones who opted to identify that way.  Rolleyes
Notice the complete lack of argument against that supposed name calling being your own assumptions: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6193-p...l#pid24511

I find that the accusation of name calling in general, is usually a tactic to shut down arguments, if the arguments are expressly going against the person who is accusing.
Reply
#50
Why do you feign ignorance so often, Syne? If I were the only one ''accusing'' you of such things, then that'd be one thing. But you seem to be the common denominator. That said, I'm over it all. You are who you are, and I'm who I am, and that's all there is to say, at this point.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Nice look! Magical Realist 3 443 Oct 14, 2016 10:43 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)